A new report claims BlackBerry maker Research in Motion is contemplating a bid that would top Google's $900 million offer for a valuable collection of patents from Nortel that include key technologies for the LTE 4G networking standard.

Earlier this month, The Wall Street Journal reported that Google had placed a bid of $900 million in cash for a collection of 6000 patents owned by Canadian telecommunications company Nortel, which declared bankruptcy in 2009. The offer was accepted by Nortel as a 'stalking-horse bid,' with interested competitors required to bid at least $929 million to outbid the company.

Google is a relatively young company, and although we have a growing number of patents, many of our competitors have larger portfolios given their longer histories, said Google general counsel Kent Walker. So after a lot of thought, weve decided to bid for Nortels patent portfolio in the companys bankruptcy auction."

However, Apple, Google, Nokia and RIM are rumored to be among the most interested parties participating in the auction of Nortel's patents. If Google's offer is challenged, an auction will take place on June 20.

According to a new report from Bloomberg, people familiar with RIM's plans claim the company is "weighing an offer" that would block Google.

RIM co-CEO Mike Lazaridis has called Nortel's long-term evolution (LTE) patents a "national treasure" in the past, though he recently declined to comment on whether his company would make a bid for the patents.

"A group of technology companies, including mobile-phone makers, may also bid on the patents to stop Google," the report noted two people familiar with the matter as saying, adding that RIM has reportedly considered joining the group. Given Google's size, the smaller handset makers would need to pool their money in order to outbid the search giant.

Patent attorney David Mixon said in an interview that he expects bidding for the patents to reach more than $1 billion. There is great potential to turn that patent portfolio around and go after smaller competitors especially, he said.

Analysts have also noted the potential value of the patent collection. "Nortel had some very good R&D engineers and Im sure there are some very valuable patents in that portfolio, said Evercore Partners analyst Alkesh Shah.

According to the report, Nortel's patents include technology licensed in RIM's BlackBerry devices, Apple's iPhone and devices that run on Google's Android mobile OS.

The patents have taken on particular significance as handset makers prepare an 'arms race' for the transition to a 4G standard. Patents to core technologies for LTE could provide not only a substantial revenue stream from licensing, but would also protect companies from litigation.

In 2009, Ericsson purchased Nortel's CDMA business and LTE access assets for $1.13 billion, but the deal did not include corresponding patents for LTE technologies. For its part, Apple has previously indicated that defending itself against lawsuits, regardless of merit, consumes "significant time and expense," and could see the patent cache as a preemptive against future litigation.

The company has become the world's most-sued tech company and has brought on several high-profile patent lawyers as outside counsel to defend itself.

According to Daniel Mead, CEO of Verizon, Apple has an LTE iPhone in the works, though it is unclear when the 4G-capable smartphone would be released. "You'll see more coming from Apple on LTE," said Mead. "They understand the value proposition of LTE and I feel very confident that they are going to be a part of it."

For several years now, Apple has posted iPhone-related job listings to its website with LTE experience listed as a qualification.

Verizon began rolling out its first LTE networks to select cities last year. AT&T revealed earlier this year that it has accelerated its plans for LTE deployment and expects the network to be "largely complete" by the end of 2013.

I wonder how valuable this IP is. Too often I see these companies buy things because they can or just to prevent others from hbkng it with little to know interest ad/or ability to utilize the IP directly.

That said, all else being equal, if this IP can lead to smaller, faster and more power efficient baseband processors Apple growth in the premium smartphone market should make them want this more than te others. Aren't these bandbase processors using ARM cores? Would their current expertise be a benefit or not matter much at all?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fila97

Time to use the 50 Billion cash reserves, Apple

Hopefully you mean "some of" and not the whole $50B.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Apparently Microsoft has a perpetual royalty-free license to the IP in these patents. Others might have to pay. Any of these major players have good reason to bid on this portfolio if they have the cash to do so.

Apparently Microsoft has a perpetual royalty-free license to the IP in these patents. Others might have to pay. Any of these major players have good reason to bid on this portfolio if they have the cash to do so.

I see what your saying but they could still be impacted by letting others have access to this IP who could then use it outmaneuver them. If think MS would be defensive against RiM, Google and Apple in smartphones.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I see what your saying but they could still be impacted by letting others have access to this IP who could then use it outmaneuver them. If think MS would be defensive against RiM, Google and Apple in smartphones.

The safest purchase, and the one best for the industry, would be one by Google IMO. Why? Google does not generally sue other players. Think they've sued a Government or two. But they don't wag patents around and file suit against everyone else in the business as a rule. The purchase of the Nortel patents would be a defensive move, intending to protect them from dubious suits. As the AI article hints, there's other potential purchasers who may see the portfolio as more patent infringement fodder, as tho there isn't already enough questionable use of the courts as a replacement for good business plans.

The safest purchase, and the one best for the industry, would be one by Google IMO. Why? Google does not generally sue other players. Think they've sued a Government or two. But they don't wag patents around and file suit against everyone else in the business as a rule. The purchase of the Nortel patents would be a defensive move, intending to protect them from dubious suits. As the AI article hints, there's other potential purchasers who may see the portfolio as more patent infringement fodder, as tho there isn't already enough questionable use of the courts as a replacement for good business plans.

The reason they haven't sued anyone is because they are too young of a company, no real hardware penetration into the market and a very small patent portfolio. You'll notice that any hardware they have made, has been a flop, hence no need for anyone to sue. But they are being sued on the software side.
I think Google wants the patents because they have bigger plans for their own tablet and phones.

In the end, I see Apple buying this at the last second for 1.3 billion to prevent further lawsuits when their LTE iPhone 5 is released. I'm sure Apple will see this as saving money in the long run, rather than spending money in the short term.

In the end, I see Apple buying this at the last second for 1.3 billion to prevent further lawsuits when their LTE iPhone 5 is released. I'm sure Apple will see this as saving money in the long run, rather than spending money in the short term and then they can start suing folks, instead of being sued by them

In the end, I see Apple buying this at the last second for 1.3 billion to prevent further lawsuits when their LTE iPhone 5 is released. I'm sure Apple will see this as saving money in the long run, rather than spending money in the short term.

Do you really think Apple would buy it? They might have a go but they have generally been a bit frugal in the offering and lost the bid. Admob and Palm (allegedly) spring to mind.

Apple tends to go for things it will use, not just things for the sake of it.

On one level it would appear that Apple is more willing to bust it out, take the gamble on themselves kicking ass. Say like the iPhone vs Nokia, Apple is just going as hard as they can and saying nah, screw your demands.

Nortel is a lot of networking IP for the hell of it, and potentially just a lot of defending network hardware infringements and companies debating licensing fees to keep the IP value alive while not making any coin through products.

-shrug-

Then again, perhaps it would offer some extra shots in the Nokia / Android manufacturer war.

RIM see's their business going down the crapper so owning a bunch of patents allows them to become patent trolls.

Dang nab it! I was going to say that! Due to my prediction of them failing by the end of the year, it would be probably the only thing worth salvaging, and possibly being able to keep the investors half-way interested in keeping them afloat a bit longer as an entity.

Ball-Silly must know and realize (privately) that they are in deep trouble, especially with the PB disaster coming to market. I still think Ball-Silly and Ball-Mer would make a great couple at the end of the day

Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member

I hope Apple buys them. The idea that google is not evil is more marketing slogan than reality.... google is totally evil. They stole the iPhone multitouch design and produced a competing product while sitting on Apple's board!

It is my sincere hope that Apple defeats google to such an extent that they become a division of Apple.

Over the long term, it is best for justice to prevail, than for criminal organizations to succeed....

Do you really think Apple would buy it? They might have a go but they have generally been a bit frugal in the offering and lost the bid. Admob and Palm (allegedly) spring to mind.

I would have agreed with you 2 years ago. But Apple has been snapping up patent lawyers left and right and is now the most sued tech company in the world.

In reality, they can't let anyone else have these LTE patents, because I can guarantee you, Apple knows that without these patents they are going to spend more in the long run defending patent trolls.

On the other hand, they could go into a bidding war with Google and force Google to spend more capital than they have available on hand. Apple can afford to go as high as 2 billion. I don't think Google could swallow that pill and survive.

The reason they haven't sued anyone is because they are too young of a company, no real hardware penetration into the market and a very small patent portfolio. You'll notice that any hardware they have made, has been a flop, hence no need for anyone to sue. But they are being sued on the software side.
I think Google wants the patents because they have bigger plans for their own tablet and phones.

In the end, I see Apple buying this at the last second for 1.3 billion to prevent further lawsuits when their LTE iPhone 5 is released. I'm sure Apple will see this as saving money in the long run, rather than spending money in the short term.

No, the reason they haven't sued yet is because they think that suing over software patents hurts the industry as a whole and stifles innovation.

In the blog post where they talked about this potential purchase they said as much. They're purchasing these patents for defensive purposes because too many companies are trying to use patents offensively and since Google is such a young company, and they're rather adverse to patents, they don't have a portfolio of their own to make companies think twice before trying to sue them.

Jessi, it's not clear at all that Google "stole" multi-touch from Apple. It was more a "line in the sand" drawn by Steve Jobs.

IMO Mr. Jobs was more upset over Google entering the smartphone business at any level. Apple and Google had numerous meetings over Android and it's ongoing development, both before and after the iPhone design was completed. News accounts indicate Apple knew what Google was doing with it, while at the same time Google reportedly felt they had to do what was necessary to prevent their business from being beholden to the goodwill of other market forces, primarily Microsoft at that time. Multi-touch was one feature that Steve Jobs probably felt defined the iPhone user experience.

Unfortunately Apple may have no grounds to claim it's theirs to begin with. Elan, a Taiwanese company, appears to have actually patented that very feature 10 years earlier. And Apple was certain to have been aware of that when they filed their own patent application. In 2006 Synaptics had already been served notice that use of some multi-touch features allegedly violated Elam's patent. And what claim Apple may imagine they hold to other parts of multi-touch may actually be owned by the University of Delaware. Apple's patent was largely dependent on the work of two employees, who had done much of the work in conjunction with the University when they were students there.

True, somebody might have attempted to "steal" the idea behind multi-touch and claim it as their own. But it wasn't Google.

On the other hand, they could go into a bidding war with Google and force Google to spend more capital than they have available on hand. Apple can afford to go as high as 2 billion. I don't think Google could swallow that pill and survive.

Why would you think that? Google is sitting on nearly $38 billion in cash. Yes, real liquid assets, "cash in the bank", so to speak. Apple is sitting with $50 billion. You must have missed Google's latest earnings report. A measly two billion isn't going to be the end for either of them. But both will weigh the cost of not bidding vs. the cost of going after the portfolio. Neither has shown themselves to be ignorant of good business practice. If a bid makes sense, they'll pursue it.

Jessi, it's not clear at all that Google "stole" multi-touch from Apple. It was more a "line in the sand" drawn by Steve Jobs. IMO Mr. Jobs was more upset over Google entering the smartphone business at any level. Apple and Google had numerous meetings over Android and it's ongoing development, both before and after the iPhone design was completed. News accounts indicate Apple knew what Google was doing with it, while at the same time Google reportedly felt they had to do what was necessary to prevent their business from being beholden to the goodwill of other market forces, primarily Microsoft at that time. Multi-touch was one feature that Steve Jobs probably felt defined the iPhone user experience. Unfortunately Apple may have no grounds to claim it's theirs to begin with. Elan, a Taiwanese company, appears to have actually patented that very feature 10 years earlier. And Apple was certain to have been aware of that when they filed their own patent application. In 2006 Synaptics had already been served notice that use of some multi-touch features allegedly violated Elam's patent. And what claim Apple may imagine they hold to other parts of multi-touch may actually be owned by the University of Delaware. Apple's patent was largely dependnt on the work of two employess, who had actually done much of the work in conjusction with nthe University when they were students there. True, somebody might have attempted to "steal" the idea behind multi-touch and claim it as their own. But it wasn't Google.

Do you really think Apple would buy it? They might have a go but they have generally been a bit frugal in the offering and lost the bid. Admob and Palm (allegedly) spring to mind.

Apple tends to go for things it will use, not just things for the sake of it.

On one level it would appear that Apple is more willing to bust it out, take the gamble on themselves kicking ass. Say like the iPhone vs Nokia, Apple is just going as hard as they can and saying nah, screw your demands.

Nortel is a lot of networking IP for the hell of it, and potentially just a lot of defending network hardware infringements and companies debating licensing fees to keep the IP value alive while not making any coin through products.

-shrug-

Then again, perhaps it would offer some extra shots in the Nokia / Android manufacturer war.

That is why is so important for Apple. If they outbid the others Apple will have great advantage cause is the only one mass producing the most popular devices devices, besides it will give them more knowledge on a lot of other topics. They are about to release new cloud services and I am pretty sure that many of those patents can be useful at that front.
The other bids you mentioned aren't that important but this one is one in a live time opportunity. You know If I was a share holder I would be more than happy to have thousand of patents cause in the worst case scenario and the company sinks for any reason I still have the patents to license or sue others.

No, the reason they haven't sued yet is because they think that suing over software patents hurts the industry as a whole and stifles innovation.

In the blog post where they talked about this potential purchase they said as much. They're purchasing these patents for defensive purposes because too many companies are trying to use patents offensively and since Google is such a young company, and they're rather adverse to patents, they don't have a portfolio of their own to make companies think twice before trying to sue them.

This is BS.

Even if you are right about how "Google feels," Google is a corporation and how it "feels" about things change as the market changes and the people running it change. Admittedly they have a shot at being less evil now that Schmidtty is gone, but in a few years it will be all different people running it yet again. Corporations generally outlive the people running them betting on the "culture" of a corporation to stay the same (and above all to be altruistic), is foolish at best.

Google can be, and is just as evil as the next company when it comes to protecting their own stuff and they are just as "closed" as Apple is when it comes to the things that make them money.

I think RIM has always been more technology oriented than Apple. Apple's focus has been more product oriented. RIM just happened to make a few phones that work on their network. These patents would go a long way to ensure the company can survive. They need to get out of the consumer products business and get back to their core business

In the end, I see Apple buying this at the last second for 1.3 billion to prevent further lawsuits when their LTE iPhone 5 is released. I'm sure Apple will see this as saving money in the long run, rather than spending money in the short term and then they can start suing folks, instead of being sued by them

The reason I'm weary of a prediction Apple will buy this is the lack of precedence for Apple paying this much for IP. For example, in 2009 they let Google buy AdMob for $750M and then bought Quattro for $300M.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kirkgray

It's cute how RIM thinks it can survive.

Don't count RiM out juat yet they are still te 2nd(?) most profitable handset maker in the world as a long way to go before they'll have to close up shop or get bought out.

Apple was only had a market cap of $5B when finally figure it out and now they are making more than that in net profit per quarter. Michael Dell wasn't alone in his sentiment. I believe even Bill Gates had something pejorative to say about Apple's attempt to be relevant again.

PS: @ Gatorguy: Using mulitple paragraphs would make your posts more readable.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

What RIMM has, just like GOOG, is identity crisis. Instead of trying to make their business phones better, RIMM is trying to get market shares in the consumer market, which IMO is the wrong move. RIMM should just make phones that's more and more useful for employees, at the same time market the phones as something that improves productivity and yet being able to restrict employees from wasting time on Apps (i.e. not iOS/Android), by tweaking their software. But now they're trying to do this PlayBook thing which is just silly.

The safest purchase, and the one best for the industry, would be one by Google IMO. Why? Google does not generally sue other players. Think they've sued a Government or two. But they don't wag patents around and file suit against everyone else in the business as a rule. The purchase of the Nortel patents would be a defensive move, intending to protect them from dubious suits. As the AI article hints, there's other potential purchasers who may see the portfolio as more patent infringement fodder, as tho there isn't already enough questionable use of the courts as a replacement for good business plans.

Google barely has any IP (especially in the mobile space, which is a very patent-lawsuit happy arena, even before Apple was even rumored to be entering smartphones). Their most famous patent is their Google Doodle.

If anything, apple barely sues anyone offensively. The only ones they have done in recent history is HTC...Not surprising considering the complete ripoff Apple thought Android was (as the recent book on Google further reveals).

Besides, its ridiculous to think Google is some sort of knight in shining armor. Even assuming they are absolutely "Dont be evil" right now (see their trademark legal actions, if you want evidence against that), it is impossible (in fact illegal) for that to last long. As a public company, if Google takes any actions, which knowingly hurt their shareholders profits, it would be illegal, since the executives would be betraying their fiduciary duties.

That stance was believable when they were private. Its silly since they've become public. I find it amazing how clueless some of the smartest people in the world (many of whom are in the tech arena) are about such basic financial/legal issues.

Do you really think Apple would buy it? They might have a go but they have generally been a bit frugal in the offering and lost the bid. Admob and Palm (allegedly) spring to mind.

Apple was simply outmaneuvered by Google in the Admob acquisition. I doubt frugality had anything to do with it. Its no surprise they went and hired a pretty senior lawyer to work on their acquisition strategy right after the loss of Admob. Not sure about the Palm acquisition, since there is very little information about it (including whether Apple had a serious offer to actually acquire Palm).

But I see your point. Apple has never really used its money to simply acquire patents, without any technology. That being said, they've not had a long history with billions in the bank, considering they spent most of the 90's simply trying not to go bankrupt.

Google barely has any IP. Their most famous patent is their Google Doodle.

If anything, apple barely sues anyone offensively. The only ones they have done in recent history is HTC...Not surprising considering the complete and obvious ripoff Android was (as the recent book on Google further reveals).

True. Having buckets full of money, Apple is the defendant more often than the plaintiff. Their recent suit against 3rd party accessory producers/sellers seems a tad offensive tho.

There's a pretty good history of Android found at TechRadar. More than a few posts here still demonstrate misconceptions regarding where Android came from, it's original goal, and who the key figure was and still is.

Their recent suit against 3rd party accessory producers/sellers seems a tad offensive tho.

I largely agree. However, the driving point in that lawsuit is not the patents themselves, but rather the fact that the "inferior" quality of those products damaged Apple's products, opening Apple to liability.

This was a direct response to "glassgate", where some badly produced 3rd party covers were damaging the iPhone, exposing the iPhone to a ton of negative publicity, and Apple to lawsuits. The lawsuit was an attempt to prevent the sales of these damaging products.

I don't mean to say Apple does not sue offensively (or will not sue offensively in the future). I expect them to. I think its ridiculous, as an earlier poster claimed, to think that ownership of the patents by 1 public company will be better than ownership by another public company, because the 1st one will not sue. My point is that any public company, if they think they will make more money than lose by suing, is required by law to sue.

True. Having buckets full of money, Apple is the defendant more often than the plaintiff. Their recent suit against 3rd party accessory producers/sellers seems a tad offensive tho.

It's offensive that Apple wants to protect its intellectual property? They spend billions on R&D and developing new products and technology. Why should any Tom, Dick, and Harry be able to come along and steal it?

I'd wager that you never created anything of enough value that people were willing to pay for it - or your viewpoint would almost certainly be different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

There's a pretty good history of Android found at TechRadar. More than a few posts here still demonstrate misconceptions regarding where Android came from, it's original goal, and who the key figure was and still is.

1. Google didn't have a mobile product before the iPhone came out.
2. Google's CEO sat on Apple's board and had access to Apple's pre-release products
3. Apple then released the iPhone
4. Some time after that, Google released Android - which had an enormous number of similarities to the Apple product.

Now, you can reach any conclusions you wish, but the facts are pretty clear.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

I hope Apple buys them. The idea that google is not evil is more marketing slogan than reality.... google is totally evil. They stole the iPhone multitouch design and produced a competing product while sitting on Apple's board!

It is my sincere hope that Apple defeats google to such an extent that they become a division of Apple.

Over the long term, it is best for justice to prevail, than for criminal organizations to succeed....

Dude, you must be a comics fan!!! And no slam for that, 'cos I've been one for over half a century, but from your starkly drawn moral landscape here.... ....I can totally see you chanting "In brightest day, in blackest night, no tech evil shall escape my sight, beware the power of Jessi's Light!"

Or, "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of corps....? The Jessi knows!"

Well, as Mary Jane would say, "Go get 'em, Tiger!!"

PS: if Steve Jobs was comics super-hero, his deux et machina tag-line - when hopelessly surrounded and out-gunned would be, "And, oh, by the way guys, there is... ...One More Thing....."

Larry Ellison would look like Patrick Stewart's 'taken-by-the-Borg outfit' as he rasped "assimilate or die" at his latest acquisition.

Steve Ballmer in spandex? Ewwwwww. No way. Wait! The Toad!!

Woz is already Segway Guy - or "the Lone Segway Ranger" - if better cast as the gadget go to guy in the garage for someone like the Punisher out in the field.... ....i.e., the role he actually played for iSteve....

But where did all the colorful characters from the earlier days of the "pre-post-PC era" go? Hard to assemble a full team of heroes or villains even the people on these boards would know, these days, let alone the gen'l public..... ...and Carly Fiorina flopped at becoming Power Girl.

I largely agree. However, the driving point in that lawsuit is not the patents themselves, but rather the fact that the "inferior" quality of those products damaged Apple's products, opening Apple to liability.

This was a direct response to "glassgate", where some badly produced 3rd party covers were damaging the iPhone, exposing the iPhone to a ton of negative publicity, and Apple to lawsuits. The lawsuit was an attempt to prevent the sales of these damaging products.

I don't mean to say Apple does not sue offensively (or will not sue offensively in the future). I expect them to. I think its ridiculous, as an earlier poster claimed, to think that ownership of the patents by 1 public company will be better than ownership by another public company, because the 1st one will not sue. My point is that any public company, if they think they will make more money than lose by suing, is required by law to sue.

I find the idea of "offensive" vs. "defensive" "patent suing" a bit ridiculous.

The main reason entities are "nice" about patents and don't sue unless it's to protect themselves, is because patent suits cost huge amounts of money and are very hard to win, not because of defensive/offensive strategy.

Thus you see Apple, which has patents on all kinds of things that it's competitors are ripping off is loathe to sue and only does so when it feels it has to. Similarly, most of RIM's new playbook OS is a direct rip-off of WebOS, but HP knows better than to sue about it because it's a fight they might easily lose even though they clearly have patents and clearly were first with the design.

Even if you are right about how "Google feels," Google is a corporation and how it "feels" about things change as the market changes and the people running it change. Admittedly they have a shot at being less evil now that Schmidtty is gone, but in a few years it will be all different people running it yet again. Corporations generally outlive the people running them betting on the "culture" of a corporation to stay the same (and above all to be altruistic), is foolish at best.

Google can be, and is just as evil as the next company when it comes to protecting their own stuff and they are just as "closed" as Apple is when it comes to the things that make them money.

You're right, companies do change, but Google has been a voice against Patent litigation for quite awhile, and Larry Page even moreso than Schmidt.

And this isn't a "Closed V Open" debate. There are very closed companies, with huge patent portfolios (IBM) that rarely, if ever go after others with lawsuits.

So yes, while they CAN change, there is no way for you to know that they will, and so all we can do is go off of what they're saying now, and what they've done historically.